This whole Phase vs. Hasselblad thread (About This Site) regarding dynamic range is a red herring of the reddest variety. It's almost pornographic, which is why, I guess, it's so popular. "The dynamic range of my HARDware, is 13? What's yours? 7? Hmmm...looks more like 6-1/2, to me." <giggle> "Don't worry, some people actually like a photographer with small dynamic range" <roll eyes and smirk> (End scene)

If folks actually got out and played with their dynamic range as opposed to just talking about it, maybe they wouldn't be so self-conscious.

More photos, less talk.

Logged

"The real voyage of discovery consists not in seeing new landscapes, but in having new eyes." Marcel Proust

This whole Phase vs. Hasselblad thread (About This Site) regarding dynamic range is a red herring of the reddest variety. It's almost pornographic, which is why, I guess, it's so popular. "The dynamic range of my HARDware, is 13? What's yours? 7? Hmmm...looks more like 6-1/2, to me." <giggle> "Don't worry, some people actually like a photographer with small dynamic range" <roll eyes and smirk> (End scene)

If folks actually got out and played with their dynamic range as opposed to just talking about it, maybe they wouldn't be so self-conscious.

More photos, less talk.

I could not agree more than that.This DxO has became an kind of Holy Graal for all a generation of numbers and curves addicts. But the funny think is that it is not even an official independant organism that would ruled worldwide the standards for scientific purposes but just people doing testings with a certain methodology.I can't remember in film age such an amount of steril datas and nobody did not care one second about how much dr had FP4 or my gear is bigger than yours...I agree, this is pornographic and it is just about who has got the bigest one. That explains why women has stayed away from this thread and why 35mm dslr are generaly more agressive to defend their gears.

Um, Chuck starts a topic to get AWAY from yesterday's brouhaha ... and you chime in to bash Dx0? Huh. Weird.

Quote from: fredjeang

I can't remember in film age such an amount of steril datas and nobody did not care one second

Well, they kinda did ... but there was no internet to put it in your face all the time. I had an Olympus SLR and there was always talk of Nikon magic and Leica magic ... and some people would rave about how good the Oly film lenses were (and they were - my 50/1.4 was a gem) ... but try telling that to someone who paid a multiple of your price for their Leica lenses ...

I could not agree more than that.This DxO has became an kind of Holy Graal for all a generation of numbers and curves addicts. But the funny think is that it is not even an official independant organism that would ruled worldwide the standards for scientific purposes but just people doing testings with a certain methodology.I can't remember in film age such an amount of steril datas and nobody did not care one second about how much dr had FP4 or my gear is bigger than yours...I agree, this is pornographic and it is just about who has got the bigest one. That explains why women has stayed away from this thread and why 35mm dslr are generaly more agressive to defend their gears.

Fred.

I don't grok that at all. We did care about DR with film. We also cared about resolution, color, ISO and all of that. Just much harder to scream at each other via letters to the editor.

I don't grok that at all. We did care about DR with film. We also cared about resolution, color, ISO and all of that. Just much harder to scream at each other via letters to the editor.

I agree with the "More photos, less talk." sentiment.

Yes DarkPenguin, we did care, but that I remember and at least in my circles, we did that only relying to pictures experience, not with vague curves and graphics discutions. I've never heard any serious and busy profesional photographer, and I know a few, relying his choice on a gear because of DxO, never. They just do not have the time neither are interested in this boring like hell topic. And that was my all point and I never stoped to claim more pictures from the very begining.

DoX is okay, they do a usefull job, but it is the absurd exageration that this is now been used for any kind of technical argument, and of course not only in this site. Each time someone wants to proof something DoX is used as the holy graal, but, as you have noticed, very very few if not one picture to ilustrate the argument. That is why I gave the benefit of the doubt to Mike, even if he might be wrong about DR. Now as you and others have suggested, more pictures, less talk. I fully agree.

Um, Chuck starts a topic to get AWAY from yesterday's brouhaha ... and you chime in to bash Dx0? Huh. Weird.

Well, they kinda did ... but there was no internet to put it in your face all the time. I had an Olympus SLR and there was always talk of Nikon magic and Leica magic ... and some people would rave about how good the Oly film lenses were (and they were - my 50/1.4 was a gem) ... but try telling that to someone who paid a multiple of your price for their Leica lenses ...

At least back then we all used the same films.

Jeremy, you might have noticed, I guess, that I'm not the only one in this thread to think that DxO is freaking, so I like to think that if you enjoyed directing this question to me personaly is because you like me

I started photography with an OM. Oly film lenses were superbs, so as the Oly digital...and I regret my E1 from time to time.

Cheers,

Fred.

edit: actually what you said is true and happened to me in Paris when I was student. I was trying to speak about how good the 50mm 1.4 was to a Leicaist (M), and he just would not beleive me and ignore completely this fact. Yes the 50mm 1.4 was a great lens. I still had one on the E1 before I sold it.

with all my respect Jeremy, I wonder about your view helph and you might re-read each post of this thread from the very begining with the appropriate tool.Or maybe for some women opinions do not count...

And if I were alone to criticize DxO, it makes me really happy: I do not like the flocks.

There are probably two distinct approaches to this subject: the pro and the am.

With film, and do forgive me for speaking up, from being one of the elder statesmen of the game and thus entirely independently of whether I was or was not any good, the facts of the matter are thus:

a. all amateurs I ever knew, myself included when in that blessed virginal state, talked tech. at the cost of anything else;b. not a pro I knew or know was interested in such talk because we all understood that the business revolved around the photographer's different talents.

Now, there were decades of prior collective experience for both pro and am to draw upon for advice or information, and magazines ran routine articles on devīn' print and eventually one gathered enough information to start doing something real, for one's self.

With digi, I think it is still in the very new phase, relatively speaking, and so many are still excited about it and certainly the internet has provided a channel for debate, showing off and bullshit of all types. Why imagine that the providers of fodder to the interested masses should not take advantage of the euphoria? And above everything else, the web has been a great place to learn how to do anything. For me, far better than any digi book of that type that I ever bought!

Since I more or less retired from the game around the time digital appeared in a serious way, I never did chat about it with other pros at all when I was active. I think that a lot of them still keep their opinions and experiences closely to their chests even today; all of it is valuable, so why give it away as a freebie to the competition? Seems a bit daft to me; however, I still know that in the end, it all comes down to the photographer's abilities. Enough of them have made money using toy cameras virtually as signatures! The name Richardson comes to mind for some reason. I wonder if he ever broke sweat about such matters as occupy many minds here...

Hell, I copied some 6x6 colour slides with my D700 the other day and I have had a lot of fun working them up and posting here on LuLa. The amazing thing is, regardless of the madness of such an unlikely technique, the images themselves turned out to be quite nice and without the accompanying tech. information one might not have suspected anything out of the ordinary had happened. Sort of goes to show something, I suppose.